Law Enforcement Officers have a tough and stressful enough job as it is. Idiot punks like the driver in the video shouldn't make their job harder.

Law-abiding citizens have difficult enough lives as it is. Idiot cops like the one in the video shouldn't make our lives harder.

---

Law-abiding citizens have difficult enough lives as it is. Idiot cops like the one in the video shouldn't make our lives harder.

 

Explain exactly how rolling your window down all the way at a DUI checkpoint when asked to do so makes your life so much harder.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Explain exactly how rolling your window down all the way at a DUI checkpoint when asked to do so makes your life so much harder.

Doesn't have to. It might not inconvenience me at all, but the black guy for cars back might find a cop shoving his head in the window to "detect the odor of marijuana" because the sergeant gave him a quota, and black people are easier to convict.


If you'd rather burn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to keep the Boogeyman away at night, that's on you. I'll continue telling cops that I have no interest in conversing with them and will be proceeding on my way so that some sap like you can have weed planted in your jacket instead of having it happen to me.

---

Doesn't have to. It might not inconvenience me at all, but the black guy for cars back might find a cop shoving his head in the window to "detect the odor of marijuana" because the sergeant gave him a quota, and black people are easier to convict.


If you'd rather burn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to keep the Boogeyman away at night, that's on you. I'll continue telling cops that I have no interest in conversing with them and will be proceeding on my way so that some sap like you can have weed planted in your jacket instead of having it happen to me.

 

WOW.  You have truly lost it.

 

First of all, most Law Enforcement Officers won't profile someone on the basis of ethnic background, unless they are looking for someone specific.

 

Second of all, a police officer would never "shove their head" through an open car window.

 

Third of all, the odor of alcohol and/or marijuana is very easy to detect simply by someone opening their window up completely.

 

Finally, I would say that 99.9% of Law Enforcement Officers will not plant evidence on someone.

 

Oh, and by the way.  Contrary to your belief, there are no "quotas" given out.  I'll let you in on a little secret.  Police officers generally don't like to write a bunch of tickets or make a bunch of arrests for petty and/or misdemeanor crimes.  To do so means having to show up in court in some cases, and showing up sometimes really blows... especially if you work the graveyard shift.

 

Furthermore, your racist comment about "black people being easier to convict" is pretty much out of line, but then I again I shouldn't be surprised to see a comment like that from a liberal.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

WOW.  You have truly lost it.

 

First of all, most Law Enforcement Officers won't profile someone on the basis of ethnic background, unless they are looking for someone specific.

 

Second of all, a police officer would never "shove their head" through an open car window.

 

Third of all, the odor of alcohol and/or marijuana is very easy to detect simply by someone opening their window up completely.

 

Finally, I would say that 99.9% of Law Enforcement Officers will not plant evidence on someone.

 

Oh, and by the way.  Contrary to your belief, there are no "quotas" given out.  I'll let you in on a little secret.  Police officers generally don't like to write a bunch of tickets or make a bunch of arrests for petty and/or misdemeanor crimes.  To do so means having to show up in court in some cases, and showing up sometimes really blows... especially if you work the graveyard shift.

 

Furthermore, your racist comment about "black people being easier to convict" is pretty much out of line, but then I again I shouldn't be surprised to see a comment like that from a liberal.

First point:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-police-c...d=37871642

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/201...e-improves (down to 69%, go Missouri!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/rac....html?_r=0

 

Second point:

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=3422

 

Third point:

Duh. That's why the window stays 3/4 up. The cop can't claim probable cause based on a scent that isn't there if he can't stick his schnozz up to the opening.

 

Fourth point:

http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/05/from...ce-videos/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer...part-game/

http://theweek.com/speedreads/591817/ala...onvictions

http://www.mediaite.com/online/philly-co...ling-cash/

http://fox6now.com/2016/06/01/one-year-p...-evidence/

http://gawker.com/5872685/genius-cops-ca...ash-camera

http://www.copblock.org/155562/deputy-fi...ng-police/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13...09754.html

http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/02/co...-the-game/

http://notallowedto.com/white-police-off...-evidence/

 

Shall I go on?

 

Last point:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08...ame-crime/

---

Explain exactly how rolling your window down all the way at a DUI checkpoint when asked to do so makes your life so much harder.

Because the cop has no business talking to me and only bad things can happen if I talk back.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

First point:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-police-c...d=37871642

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/201...e-improves (down to 69%, go Missouri!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/rac....html?_r=0

 

Second point:

http://fourthamendment.com/?p=3422

 

Third point:

Duh. That's why the window stays 3/4 up. The cop can't claim probable cause based on a scent that isn't there if he can't stick his schnozz up to the opening.

 

Fourth point:

http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/05/from...ce-videos/

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer...part-game/

http://theweek.com/speedreads/591817/ala...onvictions

http://www.mediaite.com/online/philly-co...ling-cash/

http://fox6now.com/2016/06/01/one-year-p...-evidence/

http://gawker.com/5872685/genius-cops-ca...ash-camera

http://www.copblock.org/155562/deputy-fi...ng-police/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/13...09754.html

http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/02/co...-the-game/

http://notallowedto.com/white-police-off...-evidence/

 

Shall I go on?

 

Last point:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08...ame-crime/

 

So in other words, you can't speak for yourself, rather you rely on a bunch of liberal blogs and/or liberal media to make your point.  The thing is, if you bother to read any of the stories that you quoted in "point one" you've made my case.

 

Let's just take the first one as an example.

 

"Profiling, racial or otherwise, has it's [sic] place in law enforcement when used correctly and applied fairly," the email reads.

 
The email suggests that black gang members from the nearby township of Teaneck rob white neighborhoods in Wyckoff, and white kids buy heroin from black neighborhoods in New York City.
 
"That's why we check out suspicious black people in white neighborhoods," the sender wrote. "That's why the NYPD stops those white kids."
 

 

Mind you, this is in New York City/New Jersey, not exactly "hometown U.S.A." as most of us know it.

 

I know that you don't live here, but it would be odd to see a white male in certain areas of the city, especially at night just like it would be odd to see a black male in certain areas.  That's just the way that it is.  Police shouldn't have to be PC, they should and do their job according to what is "normal" in their area of responsibility and what might be "odd".

 

The thing is, the vast majority of you "anti-police" people have never been in the position that they are in.  Simply putting the uniform on makes them a target.  You don't know if they just left a scene of an accident that took someone's life, or if they had to mediate some kind of domestic dispute, or if they had to go inform someone that their family member has passed away.  Me personally, I've had to do all three things during (and even after) my shift.  It's not a fun job at all and is tougher than you think.

 

So the next time that you think that you're being "smart" or "cute" being a "donkey" towards a police officer, sit back and put yourself in their shoes for a bit.  The video that the OP posted is not about "constitutional rights", it's pretty much a video to "bash" Law Enforcement Officers.  I would bet that if a couple of larger men got a hold of him in some alley he would be squealing for the police to come and rescue him.  When his rectum and part of his intestines are hanging out of his back side (and I've seen that) he will probably be singing a different tune.

 

The bottom line is, for anyone that wants to make these stupid claims against a police officer, I challenge them to put on the uniform and perform the job for one week.  Most people would last past the first day.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Because the cop has no business talking to me and only bad things can happen if I talk back.

 

[Male cow excrement] the police officer has every right to do so when investigating a possible crime (DUI).

 

If your son or daughter gets killed by a drunk driver, you would probably be one of the first screaming "why".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So in other words, you can't speak for yourself, rather you rely on a bunch of liberal blogs and/or liberal media to make your point.  The thing is, if you bother to read any of the stories that you quoted in "point one" you've made my case.

 

See, the problem with this statement coming from you is that if I had spoken for myself, you'd have accused me of not having any facts to back up my wild, unfounded accusations. Since, in your world, the "backing up with evidence" rule only applies when you're not the one making the argument, I figured I'd let the Interwebz spell it out for you instead. Gotta admit, I never really considered the Wall Street Journal a liberal blog before.


 

Let's just take the first one as an example.

 

Mind you, this is in New York City/New Jersey, not exactly "hometown U.S.A." as most of us know it.

 

I know that you don't live here, but it would be odd to see a white male in certain areas of the city, especially at night just like it would be odd to see a black male in certain areas.  That's just the way that it is.  Police shouldn't have to be PC, they should and do their job according to what is "normal" in their area of responsibility and what might be "odd".

 

And if a black man in a hoodie walking down the street in Queen's Harbor at 2:00 AM is weird, then the officer has every right to approach him and make contact. What you don't seem willing to acknowledge is that the man has every right per the Consitution, a document written to protect us, to refuse to engage the cop in conversation and go about his business. Refusal to waive your rights is not probable cause to have them violated. 


 

The thing is, the vast majority of you "anti-police" people have never been in the position that they are in.  Simply putting the uniform on makes them a target.  You don't know if they just left a scene of an accident that took someone's life, or if they had to mediate some kind of domestic dispute, or if they had to go inform someone that their family member has passed away.  Me personally, I've had to do all three things during (and even after) my shift.  It's not a fun job at all and is tougher than you think.

 

I never said it wasn't tough. I know it is. I've got extended family members in various police forces, and you know what? They agree with my stance that all cops are liars by trade, and that if you're approached by an officer, the best thing to do is politely refuse to engage in conversation and establish whether you're free to go or being detained. Maybe they're just poisoned by my refusal to think within a political box, or maybe they aren't mindslaves of Marco Rubio who believe that the only safe state is a police state--like someone else we both know.


 

So the next time that you think that you're being "smart" or "cute" being a "donkey" towards a police officer, sit back and put yourself in their shoes for a bit.  The video that the OP posted is not about "constitutional rights", it's pretty much a video to "bash" Law Enforcement Officers.  I would bet that if a couple of larger men got a hold of him in some alley he would be squealing for the police to come and rescue him.  When his rectum and part of his intestines are hanging out of his back side (and I've seen that) he will probably be singing a different tune.

 

The video is documenting what happened at an unconstitutional, U-N-L-A-W-F-U-L detainment and questioning. Uploading it to YouTube was for his protection given the events of the interaction. Did he go in looking to prove a point? Yeah, probably. Most YouTubers do. Doesn't mean that his actions or words were wrong in the least. He just happened to catch an officer who willfully chose to ignore the document that he swore to uphold and protect, and who would rather line his department up for a civil rights lawsuit than do what he was legally obligated to: let the man drive away in the complete absence of probable cause.


 

The bottom line is, for anyone that wants to make these stupid claims against a police officer, I challenge them to put on the uniform and perform the job for one week.  Most people would last past the first day.

 

Yes, they would. It's not as "all macho heartbreak sadness CRUSHING SOUL EMO PAIN" as you like to tell us all it is.

 

 

[Male cow excrement] the police officer has every right to do so when investigating a possible crime (DUI).

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Consitution:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

 

The officer has every right to talk to me. I won't argue that. I just have every right to politely decline to engage in conversation, and if that's an issue for them, it's on them to find probable cause to continue the conversation. Otherwise, I'll be on my way.

---

[Male cow excrement] the police officer has every right to do so when investigating a possible crime (DUI).

 

If your son or daughter gets killed by a drunk driver, you would probably be one of the first screaming "why".

Bull [BLEEP], being in public is not probable cause, nor does it mean you give up your rights. That you think it does shows what's wrong with the entire concept of "law enforcement."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In most states an officer cannot compel you to roll your window down further than is needed to speak or pass papers through.  He cannot order you out of the car for a traffic stop.  In a DUI stop (non-traffic related stop) you are not required to provide license and registration since there was no reasonably articulable reason to stop you.  You may have to orally provide name, address and date of birth.  That is considered identifying yourself in most states. 

 

In many states any time you are detained by police it is considered a "custodial arrest".  In a custodial arrest the officer may not conduct an investigation without fully informing you of your rights.  The moment the officer asks the first question, he is breaking the law unless he first informed you of your rights.  And if he does inform you, that's when you insist on having an attorney present. 

 

The cop will go ballistic and threaten you very loudly if you stand on your legal rights.  He wants you very badly to waive those rights.  Just be respectfully silent until they let you go. 

---

So in other words, you can't speak for yourself, rather you rely on a bunch of liberal blogs and/or liberal media to make your point.  The thing is, if you bother to read any of the stories that you quoted in "point one" you've made my case.

 

Let's just take the first one as an example.

 

Mind you, this is in New York City/New Jersey, not exactly "hometown U.S.A." as most of us know it.

 

I know that you don't live here, but it would be odd to see a white male in certain areas of the city, especially at night just like it would be odd to see a black male in certain areas.  That's just the way that it is.  Police shouldn't have to be PC, they should and do their job according to what is "normal" in their area of responsibility and what might be "odd".

 

The thing is, the vast majority of you "anti-police" people have never been in the position that they are in.  Simply putting the uniform on makes them a target.  You don't know if they just left a scene of an accident that took someone's life, or if they had to mediate some kind of domestic dispute, or if they had to go inform someone that their family member has passed away.  Me personally, I've had to do all three things during (and even after) my shift.  It's not a fun job at all and is tougher than you think.

 

So the next time that you think that you're being "smart" or "cute" being a "donkey" towards a police officer, sit back and put yourself in their shoes for a bit.  The video that the OP posted is not about "constitutional rights", it's pretty much a video to "bash" Law Enforcement Officers.  I would bet that if a couple of larger men got a hold of him in some alley he would be squealing for the police to come and rescue him.  When his rectum and part of his intestines are hanging out of his back side (and I've seen that) he will probably be singing a different tune.

 

The bottom line is, for anyone that wants to make these stupid claims against a police officer, I challenge them to put on the uniform and perform the job for one week.  Most people would last past the first day.

Yes, yes everyone should take a moment and consider what it's like to walk a mile in someone's shoes. Just not minorities who get pulled over for no reason. Or it get convicted at higher rates with harsher sentences. That never happens, that's just a liberal conspiracy.  :no:

---

Furthermore, your racist comment about "black people being easier to convict" is pretty much out of line, but then I again I shouldn't be surprised to see a comment like that from a liberal.

 

What bubble are you living in?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

he mentioned that a local business had been robbed and that I fit the description of the perp...which turned out to be [BAD WORD REMOVED] because they caught the guy 2 hours later and he was 4" taller and about 100 lbs heavier than I am. The only commonality was that I happen to be a black male within a 3 mile radius from where the robbery occurred. He ran my license, which took entirely too long considering there's nothing on my record and seemed genuinely saddened he didn't have anything to hem me up on. He even followed me to the bank and watched me make my deposit from his car before driving off.

 

Witnesses often misinterpret some of their observations. Height and weight is typically one of the worst descriptions given, so they're not usually relied upon unless it's when someone is exceptionally tall or short. 

 

You could have, however, matched the clothing description and you were in the area while holding money. There's usually a whole lot more to those situations than they tell you.

 

In most states an officer cannot compel you to roll your window down further than is needed to speak or pass papers through.  He cannot order you out of the car for a traffic stop.  In a DUI stop (non-traffic related stop) you are not required to provide license and registration since there was no reasonably articulable reason to stop you.  You may have to orally provide name, address and date of birth.  That is considered identifying yourself in most states. 

 

In many states any time you are detained by police it is considered a "custodial arrest".  In a custodial arrest the officer may not conduct an investigation without fully informing you of your rights.  The moment the officer asks the first question, he is breaking the law unless he first informed you of your rights.  And if he does inform you, that's when you insist on having an attorney present. 

 

The cop will go ballistic and threaten you very loudly if you stand on your legal rights.  He wants you very badly to waive those rights.  Just be respectfully silent until they let you go. 

 

An officer can't make you roll the window down, but they can certainly make you get out of the vehicle for a traffic stop. They don't even need a good reason. Supreme Court already decided on that one. 

 

The argument against DUI check points have always been against the reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) and for good reason. I don't like them, but they're technically legal. You have to identify yourself in a lawful DUI checkpoint if the officer establishes RAS after the initial encounter, even if it didn't exist before it. The Supreme Court has determined that the average 25 second delay does not unreasonably burden the driver and the State's problem with DUIs far exceed such a minimal delay. 

 

 

TLR, all cops are liars, and many cops are scum. They don't ask questions to make conversation. They ask questions because you are a criminal who owes the state some of your time and a lot of your money, and idiots who don't know and exercise their rights perpetuate that system. Don't cooperate with terrorists. Answering questions in general, but certainly at an unlawful checkpoint, detainment, questioning or stop, is no better than handing Hitler your birth certificate and asking for a star.

 

#Godwin

 

#butitstrue

 

#Giveitafewmoreyears

 

The amount of foolishness in your posts is astounding. 

 

 

That's horrible advice.  When you comply, you waive your rights.  As soon as you are detained, you are in "custodial arrest" and the rules just changed.  Did you know they changed?  Do you know how to proceed under "custodial arrest"? 

 

You don't waive your rights when you comply. 

 

Berkemer v. McCarty, Maryland v. Shatzer, California v. Beheler, and Howes v. Fields all contradict your statement. It has to be an arrest-like situation or immediately after arrest should the interview continue. Traffic stops and pedestrian stops are not considered "in-custody" for Miranda purposes.

---

Explain exactly how rolling your window down all the way at a DUI checkpoint when asked to do so makes your life so much harder.

 

It doesn't make life harder, it's just an incremental erosion of due process. For example rolling my window down isn't a big deal to me, but if someone for whatever reason refuses the officer has to accept that unless they have probably cause. Clearly when the young man in the video said no I don't want to roll it down anymore the officer became agitated and essentially said screw your rights do what I said because I am the law. I get it we don't train officers to be guardians of individual rights (not saying we should) they're trained to find criminals and arrest them.

 

Now take it to the next level with policies like stop and frisk or the stingray operations I have a bigger problem with those, but those policies are set in place because in large we the public accept the incremental erosion of due process with activities like DUI checkpoints. 

---

It doesn't make life harder, it's just an incremental erosion of due process. For example rolling my window down isn't a big deal to me, but if someone for whatever reason refuses the officer has to accept that unless they have probably cause. Clearly when the young man in the video said no I don't want to roll it down anymore the officer became agitated and essentially said screw your rights do what I said because I am the law. I get it we don't train officers to be guardians of individual rights (not saying we should) they're trained to find criminals and arrest them.


Now take it to the next level with policies like stop and frisk or the stingray operations I have a bigger problem with those, but those policies are set in place because in large we the public accept the incremental erosion of due process with activities like DUI checkpoints.

Ever heard of VIPR? Random stop and search operations of semi trucks carried out by the TSA (lol)? There was talk of extending that to random stop and search operations of noncommercial vehicles. I don't think anything came off that, thankfully, but we are still subjected to unconstitutional Border Patrol interior checkpoints that include warrantless searches throughout the southwest.

---

Ever heard of VIPR? Random stop and search operations of semi trucks carried out by the TSA (lol)? There was talk of extending that to random stop and search operations of noncommercial vehicles. I don't think anything came off that, thankfully, but we are still subjected to unconstitutional Border Patrol interior checkpoints that include warrantless searches throughout the southwest.

 

exactly, every compromise we make as the public gives them the ability to further a police state. like I said at this point I try and pick my battles, DUI check point are not going anywhere and I see the purpose for them so I don't give the police a hard time when I reach them. Honestly I try my best to never give the police a hard time, it's not their fault. 

 

But I get where people are coming from when they don't comply with these check points and at some level even respect it. I just think there's bigger fish to fry right now. 

---

Every congressperson, judge, and LEO who violates the 4th Amendment by supporting this vile behavior should be tried for treason. The oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution, not discard it to suit your own ideas.

 

Maybe this is right after all...

 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Well the way that I see it is different than most of the posters in this thread.  However, I look at it from a different perspective.

 

Technically speaking (in my opinion) the officer is conducting a criminal investigation (DUI).  

 

If this is so, then there is nothing to stop any cop from fishing any way he wants to at any time. There's nothing different about a DUI checkpoint than placing stop and frisk stations on the sidewalk at the Town Center, both are violations of civil rights and we should be ashamed that we permit it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Every congressperson, judge, and LEO who violates the 4th Amendment by supporting this vile behavior should be tried for treason. The oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution, not discard it to suit your own ideas.

 

Maybe this is right after all...

 

 

It's usually what comes before the phrase above that causes the confusion.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley